History and Human Evolution Lecture I of II

The subject of our discussion is the meaning of evolution in history, or in other words, man's social evolution and progress. Menof science assume two types of evolution for man: one of whichis biological evolution, about which you may have read in biology andknow that man is considered as the most perfect animal and the lastlink in the natural evolution of animals.

The meaning of biologicalevolution is clear: it is an evolution that the process of nature hasproduced without the intervention of man himself and without hisasking for it. In this respect there is no difference between man andother animals; since every animal has reached a stage of evolution by anatural and coercive process. The same process has brought man to thestage that we call him a human being, and consider him a specific kindof species as distinct from other species.

But the historical or social evolution means a new process ofevolution in which nature does not play the role it played in man'sbiological evolution. This evolution is an acquired one, namely, anevolution that man has secured by his own effort, and in every periodhas transferred it to the next generation through teaching and learning,and not through heredity.

The biological evolution has taken placewithout man's will power and initiative, and has been achieved througha series of laws of heredity. But the social or historical evolution, beingacquired by man's effort, has not been handed down from one generation to another, or from zone to zone through heredity, and there isnot even a possibility of its being such. It has been accomplishedthrough education, teaching and learning, and primarily through the artof writing.

We see that the Quran swears in the name of the pen andtools of writing1, and addresses the Prophet thus: “Read in the name ofyour God, Who created man from clotted blood. Read, and your God isthe most exalted; He, who taught with the pen.”2 This means that Godtaught man how to use the pen; that is, He granted him the power tomake progress in his historical and social evolution.

There is no doubt that human society since its origin, that is, sincecivilization first began to appear, has continuously progressed andevolved. We all know that like the biological evolution, socialevolution, too, has been gradual, with one difference, and that is, withthe passage of time the rate of evolution has increased in speed; in otherwords, it has followed a course of acceleration. It has moved on and onand has not been stationary, and the motion, too, has not been a fixedone. A car may move at a fixed speed of a hundred kilometers forseveral hours; but a speed with an acceleration means a gradual increaseof speed in which the speed increases every minute.

But although evolution and progress seem an obvious matter, youmay be surprised that there have been learned men who have doubtedwhether what has happened can be called progress or evolution. Onemay wonder that there should be any room for doubt in this matter.But the reason why they have expressed doubt about it will be discussed later on. Here, it is sufficient to say that although we do notconsider their doubt justified and we believe that human society hascontinued its course of an all-round evolution and is approaching itsfinal phase, at the same time their doubts are not quite without foundation. Nevertheless, we must clarify the cause for this doubt in order tobe able to fully understand the meaning of evolution.

We must first define evolution. Many matters seem at first soobvious as to require no definition. But when one tries to define them,he finds it very hard and is faced with difficulties. I have no intentionof quoting all the definitions which philosophers have given for evolution. There is a fine point in Islamic philosophy which is subject toargument from the viewpoint of the Quran, and that is the differencebetween “complete” and “perfect”.

We use the word “complete” asthe antonym of “defective”, and again we use “perfect” as theantonym of the same word “defective”. But does “complete” mean“perfect”? No. There is a verse in the Quran which is related to thequestion of Imamah and wilayah. It says:

“Now Wemade your religion perfect, and completed Our blessings on you and were content for Islam to be your religion.” (Quran, 5:3)

This shows that the Quran attributes two meanings to “perfection”and “completeness”. The blessings were completed from a defectivestate, and religion was perfected from a defective condition. But beforeexplaining the difference between the two words, let me first explainthe difference between evolution and progress, and then return to thismatter.

Is progress the same as evolution, and is evolution identical withprogress? They happen to have a difference and you may consider theirusage. We sometimes speak of a sickness which is progressing, but we donot say it is evolving. If an army which is fighting in a land occupiesa part of it, we say that the army is advancing, but we do not say that itis evolving. Why not? Because there is a sense of exaltation in evolution:evolution is an upward movement, a vertical movement, from a lowerlevel to a higher plane.

But progress and advance is always on a horizontal level. When an army has occupied a territory and added someland to its own possessions, we say that it has advanced, which meansthat it has moved ahead but on the same plane that it had before.Why do we not say that it has evolved? Because, there is the idea ofexaltation in evolution. So, when we speak of social evolution, it meansman's social exaltation and not just progress.

Many things may be considered progress for man and society without being evolution andexaltation for the human society. We say this to show that if somescholars have expressed doubts about such progress' worthiness to becalled an evolution, their view is not without foundation. Although wedo not confirm their view, yet what they have stated is not entirelypointless. Therefore, there is a difference between evolution on the onehand and progress and development on the other; for progress anddevelopment are almost similar in meaning.

But the difference between perfect and complete can be explainedin this fashion: If something consists of a number of parts, such as abuilding or a car, as long as all the necessary parts do not exist in it, wesay that it is imperfect. But when we place the last part in it, then wecan say that it is “complete”. In comparison, evolution has manyphases and stages.

When a child is born with some defect in his limbs,we consider him defective; but even when he is born with all his limbscomplete, it is still considered defective from another point of view; hemust pass through many stages of evolution in his education which arefor him a form of exaltation and ascension by degrees and steps. So farour discussion was about the definition of evolution in the social andbiological sense. But now we deal with other matters in this connection,the most important of which may be stated in three questions:

1. Has man, in his social life and throughout history, achieved evolution and exaltation?

2. Is human society undergoing evolution and will reach a fully evolved state in future?

3. If it is undergoing evolution, what is that ideal society, or, as Plato would say, that utopia of man, and what are its peculiarities?

We can understand the course of history up to the present; butwhat about the future? Should we close our eyes about the future andsay that history inevitably moves on an evolutionary course? Is evolution in nature imposed by time? Is the ship of time voyaging on an evolutionary course without the slightest intervention of man and withoutany responsibility on his part? Have human beings in the past had norole as beings endowed with free will, freedom of choice and responsibility? Has the role of human beings in the past been secondary andsubject to determinism or if there has been no such determining forcein the past?

Human beings, by their own free will and choice and their owninitiative and planning of their society, have determined an evolutionary course for their society, and have advanced it. This matter offree will and freedom of human beings in the past should not beforgotten.

Therefore, a group of men are worthy of praise and admiration, and they are those who had the choice to stand against historicalevolution, or deprive it of their support, and prefer their personalwelfare to the struggle for the sake of progress. But they chose theother way, and freely, by their own choice, followed the way of evolution, and sacrificed themselves. Similarly other human beings should bereproached and even cursed for posing hindrances in the way of thisevolution.

If we do not recognize the future and have no plan for it, and ifwe pay no attention to our responsibility for making history, wetoo deserve being reproached by future generations. History is made byman, and not man by history. If we have no plan for the future, and donot realize our responsibility for the future of history, no one canpromise us that this ship will reach its destination automatically.

Theleast that can be said is that it may either go ahead or turn backwards.This matter of ability to advance or reverse the course of events, theidea that there isn't a blind coercive force that drives events ahead, is inIslam, and especially in Shi'ism, a question, which from a sociologicalviewpoint (as I have explained in my book, Man and Destiny), may beconsidered one of the most sublime of Islamic teachings.

In Islam there is an issue called bada' (revision). The concept of bada' has an apparent meaning which few would regard as acceptable.Some have even criticized the Shi'ah for believing in bada'. The meaning of bada' is revision in Divine Destiny (qada'), meaning that God hasnot fixed a definite and final form for the course of human history.

Inother words, God says to man: “You yourselves are in charge of thefulfilment of Divine Destiny, and it is you who can advance, stop orreverse the course of history.” There is no blind determinism either onthe part of nature or the means of life or from the viewpoint of DivineDestiny, to rule over history. This is one way of looking at man, hishistory and destiny.

Therefore, as long as we do not understand the direction ofevolution and man's ultimate goal, we cannot speak of evolution andmerely state that man is progressing; for then, immediately, the question arises: towards what? If we cannot answer this question, whatright do we have to speak of evolution? Don't we study history in orderto open a way for the future?

If by studying history we get only so faras to allow it to introduce itself without showing a way for the future,what is the use of history? But we see that the Quran surveys history ina way to show us the path for the future, and this is how it should be.Therefore, our discussion is related to the past up to the present, andthen the future. The question of our duty and responsibility isdeterminable only when, after becoming familiar with the past, we gainan understanding of the future too.

If we regard history from two points of view, there has beenindubitable progress of man, if not an evolution. One of them is in thematter of tools and implements of life. Man has certainly made progressin making tools, and, of course, an amazing progress it has been. Oncehis tools consisted of unhewed stone, which later on was hewed andpolished. Today he has attained the present advanced state of technology, craft and industry.

Man has not only advanced in technical skillsand achieved stunning progress in production of tools, but he has madesuch a marvelous progress that if our predecessors and philosophers ofa hundred or two hundred years ago had been told that man wouldadvance so much in a hundred years time, as he has today, no onewould have believed it.

You may call it whatever you like, either“progress” or “evolution”, there can be no doubt that man has madetremendous progress in making tools, and it may be expected to continue in future too, on condition, however, that it is not, checked by ahistoric catastrophe, a calamity which is again predicted by some menof learning.

They consider it probable that man's technical and industrial progress will reach a point when man may destroy himselfand all his achievements in science and technology, his books,his learning and civilization and all its vestiges. A new type of humanbeing may appear to start life from the beginning. If no such catastrophe occurs, there is no doubt that the creation of tools may furtheradvance to a stage which may not be imaginable today.

This evolutionis produced by the evolution of man's experience and his knowledge,for man has made so much progress in his experimental understandingand knowledge of nature that he has been able to conquer nature andturn it into a docile servant. This was one aspect of human progress.

Another aspect of man's evolution (which again may hardly becalled “evolution”) is in the relations of social life and the structureof society (by “relations” here is not meant human relationships).Human society has gradually been transformed from a simple one into acomplex structure. In other words, in the same way as he has advancedin technical and industrial matters from the simple cars of yesterday tothe present day aircrafts and sophisticated spacecrafts, in the same wayas in natural evolution a unicellular organism is so simple as comparedwith an animal like man in bodily structure, human society, too, haschanged from a simple to an extremely complex structure.

Some have defined evolution as a process involving two stages: atfirst, there is an accumulation, that is, a multiplication of parts followed by division, characterized by a movement from homogeneitytowards heterogeneity, or, in other words, movement towards organization between parts and organs interconnected by a unifying relationship.

For example, we know that in the process of fertilization, a cellwhich is formed by the combination of male sperm and female ovumhas a simple form at first; then it begins the process of division (accumulation); one cell divides into two, the two into four, the four intoeight, the eight into sixteen, and this division goes on. But it is only aquestion of quantity until a stage is reached when there takes placeanother form of division; this is, one part becomes the nervous system,another emerges as the heart and system of blood circulation, and so on,and all these organs are interrelated forming an organized unity which isthe human body.

In this respect, human society, too, has progressed,whether you may choose to call it 'evolution' or not. That is, thestructure of human society has changed from a simple state into something complex. The structure of primitive and tribal societies was verysimple. Someone was the chief of a tribe consisting of a number ofpeople, and the chief divided the tasks between them, and these taskswere few in number. But you see that with the progress of science andtechnology, such division of work has become complicated becausethere are more tasks and more people to perform them. Compare theexisting variety of jobs, tasks, professions and crafts of modern daywith those of the societies of a hundred years ago.

Or look at the degreeof specialization at the administrative and scientific levels. In the past, aman was able to master all the sciences of his own time. He couldbecome an Aristotle or an Ibn Sina. But now the system of educationhas undergone such subdivisions, that we have hundreds of the like ofAristotle and Ibn Sina, each a specialist in his own field, who are notthe least acquainted with other branches of science and quite unawareof even their existence in the world. This is a characteristic of our time,a quality that removes uniformity and homogeneity from amonghuman beings and replaces it with differences and distinctions.

For, asman creates work, work too builds up man. As a result, although all arehuman beings living in one society, but they seem to possess differentnatures, since everyone is dealing with a task which is unknown toanother who is engaged in another task. Every one of them seems to livein a different world of his own. The result is that human beings varyfrom one another. If we speak of progress or evolution in connectionwith society and its organization and division of labour, skills andtalents, again the structure of human society has changed from a simpleinto a complex and extremely entangled one.

You may, from these remarks, realize that if things go on in thisfashion, there is a danger of the creation of so many differences that theunity of mankind will be threatened; that is, human beings willresemble one another only in appearance, but their mental, spiritual,emotional and educational structures will be totally different fromone another; and this is a great danger for humanity.

That is whyit is said that technological progress has alienated man from himself,and made him a stranger to himself. It has turned man into a creaturestyled and tailored to the needs of his job and profession, and destroyed human unity. This is in itself a serious problem. In any case, wemay say that from the viewpoint of social structure too, societies haveevolved in the past. However, here, in addition to the problem of powerand domination over nature and besides the structure of human societyand social organizations, there are a number of other problems whichare related to human nature, and that is the relationship of individualswith one another.

Has man made progress in the quality of relationships of humanbeings with one another in the same way as he has made progress in thecreation of tools, and in the complexity of social structure? If he has,then we may call it evolution and exaltation. Have human beingsprogressed in the sense of co-operation? Does a human being of todayfeel more co-operative towards others than in the past?

Has he made aproportionate advance in the sense of responsibility towards otherhuman beings? Has man's exploitation of other human beings been really effaced? Or is it that only its form has been altered and that it hasincreased in degree? Has man's aggression against the rights of othersdiminished?

Have human relations improved in proportion to theadvances made in building tools and with the complexity of socialstructure? Or have these problems remained the same as before? Orthere may be some who claim that not only no progress has been madein this connection, but also there has even been a retrogression? Inother words, can it be said in general that human values, and everythingthat is the criterion of the humanity of man, have advanced proportionately?

Different views have been expressed in this connection; somecynically deny it totally that man has made any progress whatsoever inthis respect, for, they say, if the criterion of progress is welfare andhappiness, we may hardly call it progress. For example, even in the caseof tools, it is doubted whether they have provided man with welfare. Asan example, speed is one of the things which has greatly advanced asexhibited by the telephone, airplane and other such things.

But can thisimprovement in speed be called progress when measured by thecriterion of human welfare? Or, since speed is a means, it has producedcomfort in one respect; in other respects it has deprived man of welfare:it carries a good man promptly to his destination, but it also carries awicked man as quickly to his goal and as promptly in his evil purpose.A sound and honest man has found stronger hands and quicker legs.

Awicked man, too, has the same advantages. These means have madepossible the transfer of a criminal from one part of the world to another part in a few hours, to kill thousands or even millions of people atonce. What, then, is the final conclusion? Though I am not in favour ofthis cynicism, yet I wish to explain why it has been expressed by some.For example, is the progress in medicine a true progress? In appearance,it is, for I see that when a child suffers from diphtheria, right drugs andproper medical treatment are readily available.

This is progress. Butsome people like Alexis Carl who measure these things with thecriterion of humanity, believe that medicine is gradually weakeninghuman species. They say: In the past, human beings had resistanceagainst diseases; the weak were destroyed and the strong remained alive,and this made successive generations stronger and resistant to diseases,and also prevented the unnecessary increase of population.

But now,medicine is artificially preserving weak persons who otherwise wouldhave perished and were really condemned to death by nature. Therefore, the successive generations are not fit to survive, and so everygeneration becomes weaker than its predecessor. A child born in theseventh month of pregnancy is by the law of nature condemned todeath; but now medicine, with its progress and means, preserves thisbaby.

But what will become of the next generation? Moreover, there isthe question of over-population. It happens that those who are fitterfor the improvement of the human race are destroyed and those whoare not competent to bring about this improvement somehow manageto survive. This is the reason for doubt in this matter.

In connection with the mass media, one may think it wonderful tosit in a corner and at the right moment hear the news in which he isinterested. But remember that this same thing creates so much anxietyand worry for human beings; for, in many matters, it is more advisablefor man not to hear such news.

For instance, in the past the people wholived in Shiraz were unaware of the flood which overran Ghuchan,drowning so many people and making others homeless. But now theylearn of it immediately and feel sad and anxious. There are thousandsof such unpleasant happenings occurring in various parts of the world.

It was from the viewpoint of human welfare, and welfare as acriterion that learned men have doubted whether to regard speed as ameasure of progress and evolution or not. However, we have nothing todo with these problems, for as we believe, there is ultimately an evolution and all these difficulties may be overcome-a subject which we willdiscuss later.

Thus, in the question of human relationships, we cannotsay that any progress or evolution has taken place, or, even if it hasoccurred, it is not proportionate to the progress made in making toolsand to the growth in social organization.

Another question is the relation of man with himself, which istermed 'ethics'. If we do not say that all the happiness of man lies inthe establishment of a good relationship with oneself-and we do not sayso because it would be an exaggeration-yet we may say that if themeans of man's happiness are compared with one another to find apercentage of role of every factor, a greater part of human happinesswould be found to lie in the relation of man with himself, or with his“self”: the relationship of man with his animal aspect.

For, man, inspite of his humanness and the human values inherent in his nature, isalso an animal; that is, he is an animal on which humanity has beenimposed. In other words, he is an animal, which, by the side of hisanimality, also possesses humanity.

The question arises here whether the humanity of man is subordinate to his animal side, or if his animality is subservient to his humanity. The Quran says:

He who purifies the soul indeed attains deliverance, and one who corrupts it certainly fails (91:9-10)

The problem here is of self-purification, which means not beingcaptivated by greed and concupiscence of the self, and not being in theclutches of one's base animal characteristics. As long as man has notevolved ethically and has not attained internal emancipation from hisown animality, it is not possible for him to establish good relations withother human beings. Good human relations can come into existencewhen man liberates himself from the captivity of other human beings,and is also able to abstain from subjugating other human beings tohimself.

So far we have discussed four points:

1. The relation of man with nature, in which he has made progress.

2. The relation of man with his society, which has progressed from the viewpoint of social structure and organization.

3. The relation of man with other human beings, and the quality of his relations with other members of his kind, which depends again on his spirituality and is linked with the substance of his humanity. In this matter there is doubt as to whether he has made progress or not: that his progress in this sphere has not been on a par with other aspects is beyond doubt; the real question is whether he has made any progress at all.

Has man of today overcome his animality more than his ancestorsin the past, and have the higher human values been realized in hisexistence? Or, has the quality of human existence been better in thepast? The role of the prophets in the historical evolution, their role inthe past and in the future, becomes clear in this connection.

Here wecan discover the role of religion in the past and thereby find out its rolein the future, and on the basis of scientific and sociological evidence,we can guess whether man requires religion in future for his evolutionor not; because, the survival or annihilation of every thing is subject toits being able to fulfill human need. This principle has been stated bythe Quran and is affirmed by science. The Quran says:

“As for the scum, it vanishes as jetsam, and what profits men abidesin the earth ...”(13 :17)

There is a parable which I have repeatedly used in my lectures, andthat is the parable of flood and the foam on water. It says that thefoam disappears quickly and the water remains. Right and wrong arecompared to water and foam, and what is beneficial remains, andwhat is useless disappears.

The question whether religion will survive in the future is relatedto its role in human evolution, that is, in the evolution of his essence, his spirituality and humanity and the evolution of good relation of manwith himself and with other human beings-something which cannot bereplaced by anything else, either now or in future.

The question, therefore, is that, either, in the future, humansociety will dissolve and mankind will be effaced from the face of earthas a result of collective suicide, or human society will attain its truedestiny, which is an all-round evolution (evolution in his relation withnature, evolution in awareness, in power, in liberty, in emotions andsentiments and other kinds of human feelings). We believe that thisevolution will be achieved-a belief which, in the first place, we haveobtained under the inspiration of our religious teachings.

In a lecture entitled “The Significance of Occult Aids in Human Life” I have stated the point that this optimism concerning the futureof humanity and human evolution and man's deliverance from reachinga dead-end, cannot be provided by anything except religion. It is therole of religion in human life which alone guarantees the evolution inthe human essence of man's being.

Join Us

The Ahlul Bayt DILP operates through the collaborative effort of volunteers based in many countries around the world. Register with Al-Islam.org to collaborate in creating the World's largest Digital Islamic Library on the Internet.

Support Us

The Al-Islam.org site and the DILP are entirely supported by individual donors and well wishers. If you regularly visit this site and wish to show your appreciation, or if you wish to see further development of Al-Islam.org, please donate online.